Table of Contents

Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders: a Study of Intervention Practices for Youth in Seven Cities in the United States, 1987-1991 (ICPSR 6039)

Principal Investigator(s):
Klein, Malcolm;
Maxson, Cheryl

Summary:

This data collection focuses on status offenders--those
juveniles who commit acts (such as running away, habitual truancy, and
possession of alcohol) that are forbidden to minors but not to adults.
The purpose of this study was to connect legislative intent, service
delivery systems, and youth responses in order to provide guidelines
for future status offender legislation and practice. In the selection
of sampling sites, three categories of intervention philosophy were
represented: (1) deterrence, which recommends sanctions and control
through the juvenile justice system, (2) treatment, which recommends
emotional adjustment strategies through the community mental health
system, and (3) normalization, which recommends little or no
professional response. Respondents from youth service agencies in seven
cities in the United States were asked about service delivery system
characteristics (such as types of referral sources, how often they were
used, and length of client service period), organizational
characteristics (such as public versus private auspices, sources of
funding, and educational level of staff), and youth characteristics
(such as family situation, school status, and educational attainment of
principal adults in the home). Demographic variables for status
offenders included gender, race, age, and type of residence. Interviews
with youths were also conducted and included a self-concept scale, by
which youths could categorize themselves as delinquent, disturbed,
and/or conforming. The units of analysis for this study are the
individual and the youth service agency.

This data collection focuses on status offenders--those
juveniles who commit acts (such as running away, habitual truancy, and
possession of alcohol) that are forbidden to minors but not to adults.
The purpose of this study was to connect legislative intent, service
delivery systems, and youth responses in order to provide guidelines
for future status offender legislation and practice. In the selection
of sampling sites, three categories of intervention philosophy were
represented: (1) deterrence, which recommends sanctions and control
through the juvenile justice system, (2) treatment, which recommends
emotional adjustment strategies through the community mental health
system, and (3) normalization, which recommends little or no
professional response. Respondents from youth service agencies in seven
cities in the United States were asked about service delivery system
characteristics (such as types of referral sources, how often they were
used, and length of client service period), organizational
characteristics (such as public versus private auspices, sources of
funding, and educational level of staff), and youth characteristics
(such as family situation, school status, and educational attainment of
principal adults in the home). Demographic variables for status
offenders included gender, race, age, and type of residence. Interviews
with youths were also conducted and included a self-concept scale, by
which youths could categorize themselves as delinquent, disturbed,
and/or conforming. The units of analysis for this study are the
individual and the youth service agency.

Access Notes

The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public.
Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.

Study Description

Citation

Klein, Malcolm, and Cheryl Maxson. Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders: a Study of Intervention Practices for Youth in Seven Cities in the United States, 1987-1991. ICPSR06039-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 1994. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06039.v1

For reasons of confidentiality, certain identifying
variables (such as birthday, intake date, and agency identifier number)
have been masked.

Methodology

Sample:
An analysis of the status offender legislation in all 50
states and the District of Columbia yielded seven states as the purest
possible deterrence states, treatment states, and normalization states.
A census of youth service agencies was then conducted in large cities
of the seven states: Anchorage, Alaska, Wilmington, Delaware, Boise,
Idaho, Portland, Maine, Baltimore, Maryland, Flint, Michigan, and
Manchester, New Hampshire. That census yielded 1,527 agencies, and
exclusion criteria combined with nonresponses reduced the final number
to 571 appropriate agencies, of which 245 reported providing services
during 1987 to at least some youths engaged in status conduct. Youth
interviews were limited to the cities of Boise, Manchester, and
Portland.

Data Source:

self-enumerated questionnaires and personal interviews

Extent of Processing: ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of
disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major
statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to
these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

Performed recodes and/or calculated derived variables.

Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.

Version(s)

Original ICPSR Release: 1994-05-20

Version History:

2005-11-04 On 2005-03-14 new files were added to one
or more datasets. These files included additional setup files as well
as one or more of the following: SAS program, SAS transport, SPSS portable,
and Stata system files. The metadata record was revised 2005-11-04 to
reflect these additions.

Download Statistics

This website is funded through Inter-agency agreements through the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of
the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Neither the U.S. Department of Justice nor any of its
components operate, control, are responsible for, or necessarily endorse, this website (including, without limitation,
its content, technical infrastructure, and policies, and any services or tools provided).